Last Call

From RDB2RDF
Revision as of 12:55, 3 February 2012 by Rcygania2 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Notes for Last Call.


Contents

WG decision

The RDB2RDF Working Group made the decision for the LC transition at its teleconference on 13 Sep 2011. This Last Call period ends on 1 November 2011.

Procedure for handling Last Call comments

As discussed and agreed during the teleconference on 20 Sep 2011, the WG will apply the following procedure for handling Last Call comments (until 1 Nov):

  • For each LC comment via the public-rdb2rdf-comments mailing list, one of the Editors (R2RML, DM) reacts within (ideally) three days
  • The chairs can act as a fallback if the Editors declare that they are not able to react
  • For each non-editorial comment, the Editor who answers answers creates an issue in the WG Tracker
  • For each editorial comment, the Editor who answers prepares an update of the respective ED and informs the person who commented via the public-rdb2rdf-comments
  • The same procedure as outlined above applies for WG members sending in LC comments

Received Comments

1 R2RML: Examples in 2.6 contain redundant rr:termType declaration

Response

Response Accepted

  • The reporter is an editor of the spec, made the change himself, and considers his comment addressed.

2 R2RML: Note and examples on R2RML SQL identifier syntax disagree with normative text

Response

Response Accepted

  • The reporter is an editor of the spec and considers his comment to be addressed

3 R2RML: Cardinality of predicate maps in predicate-object maps

Response

  • Tracked in ISSUE-68
  • RESOLVED by allowing multiple predicate and object maps
  • Change implemented in ED in r1.187

Response Accepted

  • The reporter is an editor of the spec, made the change himself, and considers his comment addressed.

4 R2RML: Subject: RDB2RDF Last Call Working Draft transition announcement

Response

5 DM and R2RML: comments on working drafts

Response

Response Accepted

6 R2RML: Bug in R2RML appendix B.2

Response

  • This is fixed in the Editor's Draft as part of r1.162.

Response Accepted

  • The reporter is an editor of the spec, made the change himself, and considers his comment addressed.

7 R2RML: classes of triples map only constants

Response

Response accepted

8 R2RML: comments on spec and test cases

Response

Response accepted

9 DM: (Editorial) Last Call Comments on the Direct Mapping document

Response

10 R2RML: Editorial comments on R2RML

Response

Response accepted

11 DM: Small typographical mistake

Response

12 R2RML: SQL delimited vs regular identifiers

Response

13 R2RML: A way to generate PK-strings or new blank nodes

Response

14 DM and R2RML should use same datatype mapping

Response

15 DM: PLUS SIGN character in value of a pkey column

Response

16 R2RML: Detailed R2RML comments

Response

Miscellaneous feedback

This is feedback that the WG became aware of, but that wasn't raised formally as a last call comment and thus didn't require a response from the WG. Editors have taken some of the feedback on board.

Changes to R2RML between LC and CR

Changes to DM between LC and CR

High-level Changes since the Last Call Working Draft:

  • The definition of literal map was subsumed by the definitions for natural RDF literal and canonical RDF literal in the R2RML specification.
  • Quoted identifiers (table and attribute names) in SQL examples in order to clarify the case of the created schema.
  • Minor corrections in examples of direct graphs.
  • Updated Denotational Semantics and Rules to reflect above changes.
  • diff